KR

In Eid, the position of Ibn 'l-Humam was (وتخرج العجائز للعيد لا الشواب) and was endorsed by Mulla Ali al-Qari. This is in line with what the early Imams said. Again, old women are completely prevented, which clearly goes against the early Imams of the School, if their word and letter is what we as Hanafis are aspiring to. But this opens up a discussion on which trumps the other: The prevalence of Fitnah, or the explicit verdicts of Imam Abu Hanifah? Nowadays, you have the even more absurd situation that women can’t go mosques, but Deobandis permit and encourage women to go in TJ. If my facts are right, even though they stay in designated houses, but they had to come out of their own houses to reach those TJ houses to stay. This in itself, by Khurasani standards, should be considered banned (which – you guessed it – some Deobandi uphold and oppose women’s TJ on this very basis, among other considerations). So if Hanafis today want to remain so invested in preventing women from mosques, then let them be damn consistent and apply ALL these edicts upon their women equally, and not just reduce the discussion to mosques and congregational Salah. Yet, all of this is pale when you consider how the Companions treated this matter: Umar’s grandson, Bilal bin Abd 'llah bin Umar, was abandoned by his father for not accepting the apparent meaning of the prophetic tradition that explicitly allowed women to enter mosques without hindrance. This is in the Sahih of Imam Muslim and other books. The Transoxianans had a preference, perhaps an attempt to keep within the social norms of their times and places. For this to have any meaning and application today requires an overhaul of UK Muslim society from top to bottom, not just an abstract ruling on one specific type of going out the house. Until that is achieved, promoting ancient Transoxianan edicts – and indeed the preferences of Imam Abu Hanifah and his two disciples – is an embarrassing anachronism. Then again, the Transoxianans may have just stubbornly stuck to what Imam Abu Hanifah said as a preventative measure because there was no social norm for women to attend mosques (though their presence in other public spaces can be disputed: whether they were indeed at home all day is highly debatable), without even taking their own social norms into consideration – just like Hanafis today, in the multi-ethnic, multi-Madhhab, Fitnah-prone society of the UK, where women occupy every space of life – all except the mosques. Just like the Hanafis of today, you just couldn’t put anything beyond the ancient Hanafi Transoxianans – they were one of a kind. Even their obligation of adherence to one school – for which their word is pretty much worthless given the reasoning they furnished – is formed on a different basis from would put modern-day Taqlid Shakhsi fanatics to shame, in that one must believe the Hanafi School is superior to all other schools, thereby not only validating adherence to the Hanafi School, but also absolutely outlawing taking from other schools, even if it means the perpetrator of such a ‘crime’ is severely beaten to a bloody pulp. Attempts to revive that type of approach to Islamic law in South Africa perhaps explain why South African Hanafism is so detested by Hanafis elsewhere, especially in many parts of the UK. Perhaps the abhorrence only started when .za Transoxianism seeped into British Hanafis facing very different challenges. If one of these Transoxianan Hanafis turned up in Iraq, Syria or Egypt in his era and started issuing similar Fatwas in those countries, he would have probably been chased out. Nowadays, I can guarantee that those who continue to prevent women from mosques in this place and era have not studied Maqasid 'l-Shariah. Even a whiff of the subject who have snapped them out from their pseudo-intellectual masochism. By the same token, kids and beardless teens should be prohibited as well due to the prevalence of paedophiles, especially given the exact same argument is used to prevent 90-year-old wrinkly women from attending mosques.

This is an interesting point: Whereas the fatwa of Imams Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad are well known, the reasoning behind them which is usually cited is not all from them. Rather, many of them were developed by later Hanafi scholars. Some of those arguments that were developed on their behalf are utterly bogus. Do you really think Imam Abu Hanifah would have prohibited women from attending a lecture on spirituality? Heck, some Hanafis like al-Babarti even used the verse ولقد علمنا المستقدمين منكم ولقد علمنا المستأخرين to prohibit women. If that was the case, women would have been prohibited by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself! And this was one of the arguments Ibn Hajar tactically utilised against the common Hanafi position of prevention. Granted, there is some (hyper-)granularity for attending academic lectures where knowledge is attained. Here is Tahir al-Bukhari again (possibly via Abu 'l-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 333 A.H.)): فإن أرادت أن تخرج إلى مجلس العلم بغير رضا الزوج ليس لها ذلك، فإن وقعت لها نازلة إن سأل الزوج من العالم و أخبرها بذلك لا يسعها الخروج، وإن امتنع من السؤال يسعها الخروج من غير رضا الزوج، وإن لم تقع لها نازلة لكن أرادت أن تخرج إلى مجلس العلم لتتعلم مسألة من مسائل الوضوء والصلاة إن كان الزوج يحفظ المسائل ويذكر عندها له أن يمنعها، وإن كان لا يحفظ الأولى أن يأذن لها أحيانا، وإن لم يأذن فلا شيء عليه، ولا يسعها الخروج ما لم يقع لها نازلة This spaghetti junction of edicts is a result of misdiagnosing the Fitnah at best, and being completely out of touch with the realities faced by Muslim women at worst. Why is the Fitnah argument not applicable to Janazah but applicable to a spiritual lecture!? Why then the exception for knowledge sessions when so many caveats that it would be difficult to memorise them, for both husband and wife? Who knows any of this!? I didn’t even bother translating this passage. And why are non-Muslim female police officers and politicians invited allowed in the male sections of mosques – aren’t they a greater Fitnah than Muslim women with their lack of appropriate dress? Ancient Hanafi School discourse revolves around what types of women are allowed to what types of prayer. There is a mess of reasoning behind the opinion of Maghrib, Isha and Fajr being allowed for old women, but not Zuhr and Asr: The libidinous transgressors who want to rape women are out in force during the daytime. Really? One would have thought the opposite. And are these libidinous transgressors only seen around mosques? Do they have a fetish with Hijab-clad women attending mosques because they sick and tired of brothels and city areas designated for prostitution? And in a time where the online world has all sorts of filth, you reckon these libidinous transgressors’ only chance of getting what they want is to hang around mosques and target women? Is that your line of reasoning? But it gets even more confusing. Ibn Nujaym argued that the blanket prevention of old women from attending the mosque is not the position of any of the three foremost Imams of the Hanafi School (فالإفتاء بمنع العجوز في الكل مخالف للكل فالاعتماد على مذهب الإمام), concluding that they ought to be allowed. So here, Ibn Nujaym completely disregards the Fitnah line of argument in favour of ‘because Imam Abu Hanifah said so.’ This was in refutation of al-Kasani, who seemingly was the first Hanafi scholar to talk about outright prohibition for women in the mosques. Before him, it progressively was upgraded from dislikeness to severe dislikeness, and ended up in an outright ban. After al-Kasani, Hanafis juggled around with these conflicting verdicts. They are seriously all over the place – everyone classical scholars has his own nuance that the other doesn’t.

i.e. they explicitly allowed women to attend the congregation for Janazah. Is Fitnah not applicable in Janazah, because people are too gloomy at a funeral? In a similar vein to Janazah, Eid was discussed by scholars like al-Sarakhsi, al-Kasani and Ibn Mazah who have all stated: فأما صلاة العيد فتؤدى في الجبانة فيمكنها أن تعتزل ناحية عن الرجال كيلا تصدم Even though this is contentious insofar as the prophetic era is concerned where there was no barrier between men and women, let alone being completely separate, but provided it is an open plain where freemixing is not possible, their attendance was deemed permissible by these Hanafi scholars. One wonders why that was considered permissible by the classical Hanafis whose names have been provided, but so-called traditional Hanafis of today still don’t have a mosque or eidgah that has the necessary segregation requirements to accommodate women. If segregation is all that is required (as this position re: Eid suggests), then what was the harm in making space for a women in a reasonably regulated manner? Why the insistence in not investing in infrastructure for women under any circumstances? It gets ostensibly worse. Tahir al-Bukhari (d. 542 A.H.) citing from Majmu 'l-Nawazil by al-Natifi (d. 446 A.H.), says in his Khulasat 'l-Fatawa: وفي مجموع النوازل يجوز للزوج أن يأذن لها بالخروج إلى سبعة مواضع: زيارة الأبوين، وعيادتهما، وتعزيتهما (أو أحدهما)، وزيارة المحارم، فإن كانت قابلة أو غسالة، أو كان لها على آخر حق أو لآخر عليها حق تخرج بالإذن وبغير الإذن، والحج على هذا، وفيما عدا ذلك من زيارة الأجانب وعيادتهم والوليمة لا يأذن لها ولا تخرج، ولو أذن وخرجت كانا عاصيين (Translation) “It is permissible for a husband to allow [his wife] to go out on seven occasions: visiting parents, visiting parents when they are ill, offer condolences to them after a death (or one of them [in all these cases), visiting Mahram relatives; if she is a midwife or a washer [of corpses, presumably] , or someone has something of hers or vice versa, she may go out either with or without permission; and Pilgrimage is like this [as well]. Apart from this – such as visiting non-Mahrams, visiting them when sick, attending a wedding meal – he should not permit her and she should not go. If he allows her and she goes, they would both be sinners.” Really? She can only go out for these seven things? Are you telling me that women in this era can’t even go out to attend a walima? This list micro-managing women is: a) an utterly incomplete list, and b) is an insult to female Companions women who nursed men in battles and led armies in war. What ridiculousness – other than pure obstinacy over edicts that were inapplicable in their era – could have caused this? Then again, Tahir al-Bukhari cites Abu Hafs al-Safkardari’s infamous edict suggesting the Hanafis shouldn’t marry off their daughters to Shafiis, yet Hanafi men may marry Shafii girls, indicating that Shafiis are like Jews and Christians. I for one will therefore give this one a pass. There are many exceptions and additions to the ruling of where women can and cannot go. There is no clear ruling and it is a grey area. If this matter of mosques specifically is revisited for a specific geography in the contemporary era, what is the harm in that? In fact, that is exactly what Darul Ifta al-Misriyya did and they gave an excellent, balanced answer. The website is down for now but I’ll reproduce it as a scan, below. There is no doubt that contemporary Hanafi prohibitionists have a lot more in common with the Dawudi Zahiris. At least the Dawudi Zahiris were faithful to the Nusus, which by nature are timeless. Hanafi zahiris (no capital) pay no heed to the Nusus and are quite specific about their adherence to the edicts of Hanafi scholars, regardless of whether their edicts were tied by time and place, and regardless of the circumstances today that may require an alteration in legal approach. Many of the verdicts by the Imams of the Hanafi School are from the Mutaghayyirat, but are elevated to a quasi-Nass platform of being Thawabit.

And why is it even permissible for girls to attend girls-only schools? This is because the mosque-prohibition/-segregation issue is about venturing out of doors at all? Do these Hanafi numpties actually believe that these edicts are only targeted at religious institutions, but everything else – going to the marketplace, visiting friends, going to the park, attending a school, going to a funfair with rides, going to a female gym, having a social life at all – is permissible? We never hear their voices in prohibiting these so why are they primarily targeting the women’s place in the mosque? And in an era where women virtually everywhere BUT the mosques, it makes no sense to still declare their entry into mosques prohibited. Ibn Hajar used precisely this argument against later Hanafi scholars. In his Fath 'l-Mulhim, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani tried to refute Ibn Hajar – unfortunately with the most absurd of line of juristic reasoning: ويمكن أن يقال: إن الزوج لا يمنع زوجته من تلقاء نفسه إذا استأذنته إن لم يكن في خروجها ما يدعو إلى الفتنة من طيب أو حلي أو زينة وغيرها. نعم! يمنعها العلماء المفتون والأمراء القائمون بدفع الفتنة وتغيير المنكرات لشيوع الفتن وعموم البلوى، والزوج أيضا يخبرها بمنع العلماء وأولي الأمر An utterly baseless and ridiculous claim, taking powers away from husbands and putting it in the hands of politicians. This is also against the practice of the Companions, where husbands (with wives already empowered by spirituality and knowledge of the Shariah) were allowed to prevent them from the mosque (leading some women to stipulate access to the mosque in their wedding contract – that is how empowered they were). There is no need for politicians. (For all his discouragement of women in mosques, Umar bin 'l-Khattab’s wife at the time, Atikah bint Zayd, was present in the mosque during the Fajr he was attacked and subsequently martyred. Unfortunately, this historical fact is lost on many prominent Hanafi scholars including Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who – giving an example of the concept of Sadd 'l-Dhariah, or preventative measures – suggested in his Usul 'l-Ifta' Wa-Adabuh: “When Umar saw in his era that this permissibility is leading to Fitnah, he prevented them from the mosques.” Really? What was Atikah doing in the mosque then? And why did she stipulate in the marriage contract that she is allowed to go to the mosque, and Umar did not refuse her this? Not only that, she stipulated the same condition with her next husband, Zubayr bin 'l-Awwam. Having accepted the stipulation, it was very tough on him to see her go out to the mosque. On one night, he guised himself up and tugged at her bottom when she was on the way to the mosque, in an attempt to deter her. When she came back, she told Zubayr she will not go the mosque anymore, stating “People have become immoral.”) But this is what happens when scholars became to ancient Mutaghayyirat edicts are treated as Thawabit – great scholars start coming out with the most illogical line of argumentation. It doesn’t end there. If prohibitionists are going to be so puritanically literal about late Hanafi edicts, then realise that they not only discourage women attending mosques and Eid, but also spiritual admonishments (ولو لجمعة وعيد ووعظ). Your 'Facilities for sisters' announcements – just so you can get some female attendees onto your Manhaj – are disallowed by the same token you denied them from entering mosques. Your differentiation is only a sign of your hypocrisy. But even this is a point of utter mess between Hanafi scholars. Ibn Kamal Basha said: ومتى كره حضورهن المساجد للصلاة فلأن يكره حضورهن في مجلس الوعظ أولى and al-Shurunbulali said: وقال في الكافي ومتى كره حضور المسجد للصلاة لأن يكره حضور مجالس الوعظ خصوصا عند هؤلاء الجهال الذين تحلوا بحلية العلماء أولى ذكره فخر الإسلام رحمه الله i.e. they absolutely prohibited women from even going to a spiritual lecture. However, al-Haskafi said: في غير صلاة جنازة and al-Tahtawi said: إلا صلاة الجنازة فلا تكره جماعتهن فيها لأنها لم تشرع مكررة فلو انفردت تفوتهن

Many don’t learn anything elsewhere, many don’t have radio receivers, they do not read books or watch lectures at home, their husbands are mostly too rubbish to teach them what they learn in the mosques, and the infrastructure supporting their religious and spiritual needs are wholly inadequate. Physical attendance at the mosque can in no way be substituted by radio receivers – and men can attest to this fact themselves. Heck, the women are sometimes more religious than the men, even though the men have more opportunities to be spiritually close to Allah than the women! And since this is a matter framed in the point of more Fitnah appearing, then what also should be taken into consideration is that ignorance in women is also increasing, and preventing them from mosques feeds into that. The ‘Fitnah of a growing ignorance due to lack of access’ versus the ‘Fitnah of women dressed/behaving inappropriately’ needs to be addressed in a balanced manner, not lopsided in favour of the latter, not to mention the issue of Fitnah – or levels of it – is just speculation within one time and place, let alone universally. And that is why Deobandi edicts – like this one: http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/29887 – are disingenuous in providing a solution. They simply do not appreciate the central role of a mosque in a Muslim’s life, and how ignorant men are and are incapable of teaching their womenfolk in their homes. On the other side of the spectrum, there is a serious concern of intellectual, cultural and spiritual apostasy taking place in silence and the men are aloof to this, because women are not integrated well enough. Who assumes the responsibility for this? Any men who claim these needs of women are met only say so because they're not the ones who have to jump through hoops of fire to attain these. Prohibitionists are in no position to mansplain and lecture utterly demoralised and demotivated Muslim women on this. When someone like Yasmin Mogahed comes to give a lecture in a place like Dewsbury (2013) in a women's-only gathering, these same prohibitionists shouted out from the top of their lungs to warn against her, call for a boycott and lay claim for themselves as the best protectors of women from this ‘deviant’ speaker. Why? Because their manly authority was violated? Because their religious authority was violated? In a climate where women are forced to read on the road and expose themselves to those passing by, are forced to read in a shop of a Sikh owner (Sikhs are never a Fitnah and are proper safe with Muslim women, aren’t they?), are forced to be driven for miles before they can read in peace – all because the multiple mosques in the community do not allow them to even enter (unless if it is to raid their jewellery for mosque funds and donations, in which case they are given guided tours of the mosque compound (not even the Waqf mosque) on weekend mornings as if they’re visiting Uhud), please don't tell me that Imam Abu Hanifah would have said “I stubbornly stick to my position that I discourage women from the mosques.” These Hanafi nutjobs should ask themselves, since there are the masters of identifying Fitnah, where their posts, videos and edicts are calling for all Muslims to not take their daughters and women out for shopping, or for any worldly reason beyond absolute necessity? This is a far more immediate and widespread issue than whether the occasional prayer by these ladies away from their homes. Where are their details edicts, posts and video lectures laying out the obligation of home schooling for all girls who have reached puberty, or adolescence even? Where are their edicts prohibiting universities for Muslim girls? (Some do, but collectively, Indo-Pak Hanafis are nowhere near as vocal as they are when they prohibit women coming to mosque, or refuse to accommodate them by not setting aside the infrastructure for them that even allows for women to attend the Jamaah).

A sign that this matter is from the Mutaghayyirat is that the Imam Abu Hanifah explicitly says he considered another ruling in this matter – undesirability – that was different from the era previous to him. Thus, his statement in itself is proof that this issue is from the Mutaghayyriat according to him. Given that it is from the Mutaghayyirat, the diagnosis of the reason of undesirability – if provided by the Imam – may no longer stand applicable in a different geography or era. In other words, every place and era would be a point of contention, debate and consideration in its own right, the ruling and its application of which sober scholars of each place and era would have to consider. The most important thing to consider when we tackle the Mutaghayyriat is the time, place, and the pros and cons of both positions, and to adopt one. Al-Zaylai said in his Tabyin: ولا ينكر تغير الأحكام لتغير الزمان كغلق المساجد يجوز في زماننا – “It is not condemned to change rulings due to the change in eras, such as the locking of mosques, which is permitted in our era.” (Ironically, al-Zaylai said this in defence of the prohibition of women in mosques; the same argument can be used for the reverse position in our era). It is therefore ridiculous to stubbornly stick to the fatwa of a past scholar without considering the time and place one is in. That is stupidity, not Fiqh. In fact, stubbornly sticking to that edict nowadays is equal to abrogating the texts of the Sunnah through logic (نسخ النص بالتعليل), which is utterly invalid. Indeed, non-Hanafi scholars of the past have accused the Hanafis of doing this in this matter, since pre-contemporary Hanafis are virtually united in their position that women should not attend mosques. Now, consider this analysis that is veritably 100% true, from S. Bashir Muhsin Siddiq of Madinah: “Our (Hanafi) lay women [in the Sub-Continent] are the most ignorant of all Muslim women in the world, principally because they are not allowed access to the mosque, nor is any accommodation made for them.” Some Hanafi women are so ignorant when they do end up in a mosque – in the Haramayn. They have an inferiority complex with other women there. Our women struggle to pray Janazah, Jumah, and general congregational prayer properly. My friend told me that once that the Imam did the recited Alif-Lam-Mim al-Sajdah in al-Aqsa. After Salah, the ladies came up to him and asked, “Why do they pray Fajr different in Palestine?” This is an unacceptable level of ignorance. It is not only that: Female converts need a place where they can meet likeminded women and express their faith. If the mosque cannot accommodate this, then what impression would that leave? Can the contemporary prohibitionists guarantee that no potential convert has been turned off from accepting Islam because their access to the most conspicuous infrastructure in Islam – the mosque – had a closed door policy for them? Alternative institutions and infrastructure simply don’t cut it. Don't blame Imam Abu Hanifah for it. Had he been alive today, looking at the state of women in parts of the UK and elsewhere, he would have assessed the situation and concluded that not only should women be allowed in the mosques, but that their regular attendance at mosques would be incumbent upon them. He didn’t have a crystal ball that allowed him to look into the future to see what was unravelling in his name. He didn’t even believe this matter was from the Thawabit, let alone his position would become the mufta bihi for all times and places. (I have received reports about the level of religiosity of Muslims in Quds, which is low compared to other Muslim regions. One factor that is blamed is the Jewish occupation of the land: The fact that many men cannot access Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa is a tragedy that cannot be understated, especially in an Arab community, the religious lifeblood of which revolves around lectures and Friday sermons at the mosque).

INDO-PAK HANAFI LADIES & THE HOUSES OF ALLAH: A SCANDAL THAT REFUSES TO DIE (from 2016) There is a Muslim advisor for HMPS in the UK I personally know of. He is responsible for the affairs of Muslims chaplains across the country. In a conference that gathered both male and female Muslims from the chaplaincy and prison administration community, some of the male Mullah chaplains were very uncomfortable sitting nearby sisters, and they communicated this to the HMPS advisor that this was an attack on their piety and religiosity. The coordinator thought long and hard about their concern and decided in favour of segregation. On the next day at the conference, he stood up and announced, “I understand there were complaints by some of the male attendees here that adequate segregation facilities have not been made. Therefore, whosoever The coordinator thought long and hard about their concern and decided in favour of segregation. On the next day at the conference, he stood up and announced, “I understand there were complaints by some of the male attendees here that adequate segregation facilities have not been made. Therefore, whosoever from those men feels uncomfortable sitting in close proximity to Muslim sisters, they themselves should go to the segregated area.” Unsurprisingly, none of those gynophobic Mullahs stood up. It seems their inflated egos were far greater than their pretenses to piety. With this mini-introduction in mind, let’s first agree that there are some Islamic legal issues that are less to do with the school or the scholar they emanate from, and more to do with the requirements, situation and needs of the place and era. These legal issues those that fall under the umbrella of rulings subject to alteration and variation, or the “Mutaghayyirat” (متغيرات). The opposite of that are the constants, or “Thawabit” (ثوابت) - those scholarly rulings that are not subject to change as a result of changes in time and place. A rundown of the rare dozen or so Fatwas in which later Hanafis pass verdict as per Zufar’s position is an example of where later scholars divorced themselves from the verdicts of the top three Imams in the Hanafi hierarchy – Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad – purely for practical reasons, not for evidential considerations, even though the dispute between the scholars in these is presented as a dispute based on evidence. There are dozens of other examples where the later jurists mention وفي زماننا – “in our era.” A detailed study of ancient legal texts will not get you anywhere near these revised verdicts precisely because such matters are from those issue subject to variation in ruling, rendering ancient edicts redundant in these situations. Other examples would include: taking a fee for religious teaching and for the call to prayer, oaths from an unknown person testifying for Ramadan, coitus interruptus without permission if the wife - morally - isn’t motherly material, etc. (Of course, there can also be disagreement on whether the ruling in an issue is from the Thawabit or the Mutaghayyirat. This is the chief reason behind the contemporary difference between scholars who say there is no need to turn the face right and left in the call to prayer, versus those who still advocate this practice even in front of a mic. But this is a long discussion and not one for this post.) Suffice to say the issue of women in the mosque is from the Mutaghayyirat and not from the Thawabit of the law. Fellow Hanafis may disagree with the conclusion but what this post will attempt to demonstrate is that it should be treated as a valid position and that it should not only be tolerated as a legal opinion, but be respected as a position from the Hanafi tradition.

SHORTCOMINGS IN PRESENT HANAFI FIQH PEDAGOGIES (from 2017) Some of the most damaging things for a student of Hanafi Fiqh, that I can now say in hindsight, having formally studied it over a decade ago, can be summarised as follows: 1. A huge lack of exposure to non-Hanafi texts and their modus operandi 2. A lack of exposure to the plethora of non-taught texts within the school 3. Constantly having to deal with strawman arguments and bashing them until one is convinced there is nothing greater than Hanafi Fiqh 4. A complete absence of mention of Hanbali Fiqh, and Maliki Fiqh to a large extent 5. An absence of discussion of the nuances between the classical and contemporary sub-schools within the school 6. An over-reliance of study on middle and later scholars, and an abandonment of the early Imams 7. A lack of exposure to the Tariqat 'l-Jam` in Usul 'l-Fiqh, and an over-exposure to Tariqat 'l-Fuqaha 8. The superficial distinction between Fiqh and Ifta' in terms of student development 9. A lack of training in Ijtihad methodology as per the Usul of the school 10. A lack of appreciation and study of those personalities who prominently did Ijtihad as Hanafis, like al-Laknawi, Ibn 'l-Humam, al-Tahawi, etc. 11. A lack of study and implementation of Qawa`id Fiqhiyyah 12. A complete absence of study of Hanafi Fiqh in practice, in contemporary society and in classical societies (for God sake we ruled half the world for a 1000 years) 13. An over-reliance on Transoxianan texts in the second, third and fourth stage of the Hanafi Fiqh curriculum (al-Kanz, al-Wiqayah, al-Hidayah) 14. A total absence of discussion in the classroom about the personal views of contemporary Hanafis vis-a-vis ancients positions inside the school, such as al-Kashmiri and his personal opinion on `Amm - is it Qat`i or Zanni? Why did he adopt that position? etc. 15. A misprioritisation between the school and the Quran & Sunnah in the later stages of education, to the extent that the school per se subconsciously takes precedence in the discourses, whereas the Quran & Sunnah are relegated to second place in terms of importance; a mentality of wanting to know 'what the response would be' to other schools 16. The development of a completely distorted view of Usul 'l-Fiqh by having as its first text an opaque work like Usul 'l-Shashi 17. A total absence of discussion of the connection between Hanafi Fiqh and Usul 'l-Hadith, apart from the little that discussed in passing in the books, and context, of Usul 'l-Fiqh 18. A total absence of the study of Fiqh 'l-Waqi` and how Hanafi Fiqh needs to be applied, reformatted and/or adopt from other schools 19. Outside Arab classrooms, a lack of arabicisation of the subject - everything is filtered either into English or Urdu, even at the higher levels 20. An overemphasis on `Ibadat, and a dilution of non-`Ibadat chapters, relatively 21. An almost absolute lack of an expansionist mentality for the school: the lack of heritage revival, editing and publishing manuscripts, re-editing poorly edited works, poor editions of new books all contribute to an image that is highly damaging to the school 22. An absence of appreciation for Istihsan as a major principle of the school 23. A lack of understanding of the role of Maqasid in the Ijtihad of the Imams, and how that has now been overruled by the institution of Ifta Let us Hanafis get off our high horses and admit that, pedagogically, we are nowhere near where we should be. Students going in to or currently inside their studies should be aware of the limitations; for us 'graduates', we should be devising for our later generations what we were lacking when we were studying.

5. It appears from the methodology set of by ZK that he only explains the weakness of narrations when they are a) mentioned as the topic headings, and b) in Arabic for the learned. This is flawed. The prerequisite of narrating weak prophetic narrations is that every weak Hadith’s status should be spelled out and not the just the numbered Hadith he led the topics with, and that it should be done so that everyone reading the book can comprehend its weakness, not just scholars. The idea that only scholars should be privy to such information is unprecedented. (MA went on the extreme and claimed this prerequisite is not correct at all. In doing so, he went against his mentor AFAG, who correctly considered weak and fabricated narrations without chains of transmission mentioned alongside them to be a problem. In essence, it goes back to the same issue identified by AFAG earlier, i.e. mentioning chains of transmission in the early was sufficient, whereas that is no longer sufficient in the post-transmission era where chains are no longer mentioned, in which case the substitute is to explicitly mention its weakness.) I have not done an in-depth study of FA, so there will probably be other major methodological flaws in FA. There will be other books that ZK cited from that are not as problematic, but do carry some severely weak narrations, some of which were probably deposited by ZK into FA. Only an in-depth Takhrij study into all the narrations can uncover the true extent of this. The fact of the matter is scholars have traditionally let down their academic guard when writing on spirituality. Ancient Hadith scholars have warned against the narrations of the pious - this still rings true for the post-Hadith compilation era, and even for today. Yahya bin Sa`id al-Qattan said, “In Hadith, there are no bigger liars than the pious.” Explaining this, Muslim said, “Lies trip off their tongue, though they do not intentionally lie.” In this context, lying means making errors in Hadith, either by narrating outright fabrications, or passing off weak Hadith as authentic, or miscalculating the level of weakness in Hadith. Such a practice in intolerable, no matter from whom it emanates. And it is most certainly not the acceptable relaxation (تساهل) that the early scholars of Hadith were referring to when narrating in virtues. In fact, some scholars wear multiple caps: They can be proficient when writing on law and beliefs, but can be lackadaisical when writing in spirituality. Other than ZK, the prime example for this is al-Ghazzali. He was careless with Hadith in his literature of the spirituality genre. His other works where he did take care when citing Hadith do not redeem his works where he was careless. The same applies to every other scholar on this planet, including ZK. His commentaries on the al-Muwatta’ and Sahih ‘l-Bukhari do not redeem FA. Presenting ZK’s career achievements and academic credentials is not a proper answer to the existence of severely weak, fabricated and baseless narrations in FA. It goes without saying that these scholars have great contributions. Their errors are most probably offset by the honesty when they committed them, and for that we can all be confident that they are forgiven by Allah, with His Permission. But still, it does not excuse those coming after to continue upon these errors. After all, the Prophet (peace be upon him) - in what is probably the most authentic Hadith ever recorded - did threaten Hellfire on anyone who purposefully lies against him. Again, lying is not only reporting fabrications, but passing off weak Hadith as authentic, or miscalculating the level of weakness in Hadith. And it is the job of Hadith scholars in every era to guide the Muslims to this. In conclusion, the general advice one can only give re: FA, or more specifically: individual narrations in FA, is this: If in doubt, leave it out. Better be safe than sorry. Also read UN's post.

Tell those folks who are advising me to revise my Tabligh treatises to write me what they think needs correcting. God willing, anything that needs correcting will be done. I do not have a problem with corrections. However, it is difficult for me alone to identify those things that may occur to others. Besides, I do not think there is any treatise that is no longer subject to corrections. Look at ZK’s humility! He is very open to corrections, and specifically corrections pertaining to the presence of severely weak narrations. In addition, he had presented his work to at least two scholars in Mazahirul Uloom, who advised him to remove anywhere between 20% and 25% of the bulk of the original work (by this figure, I’m assuming they removed the leading narrations in FA, not the 000s of explanatory narrations that ZK mentioned as Shawahid). ZK himself said he removed anything between 20% and 25% of FA because it comprised of ناقابل انجبار ضعف, adding that there is potentially more content in FA like this. So, according to ZK's own shart for FA, severely weak narrations are not tolerable. (In practice, however, it appears to be a different matter. The 15 punishments Hadith ZK cited is in no way tolerable weakness. Only reason ZK brought it was a) its content is found in other Hadith and b) scholars like Ibn Hajar cited it in Munabbihat (not his book). This is not a proper method to strengthen a seemingly weak Hadith.) This demonstrates that ZK was quite open to corrections and criticism. He was not in the business of defending FA to the death, unlike what some FA fanatics do on his behalf. If only those who set out to defend him were able to appreciate the tone of ZK’s words to realise there really isn’t the need to defend him with such passion and force. But, as alluded to before, the ultra-sensitive Deobandi would feel that accepting criticism on FA is not only to discredit ZK but the entire TJ movement. After ZK’s passing away, if some scholar or student of knowledge feels there is a narration that does not meet up to ZK’s own conditions, he may express his view without a problem. He most certainly must not be victimised for it. So we’ve discussed just one blunder here (the Friday Asr salutation x80), and there are more in the forum link I shared above. The list of such narrations can go on and on. But I want share with the unbiased reader some methodological errors in FA: 1. FA’s numerous citations from al-Munabbihat, which ZK attributes to IH. This is falsely attributed to him, and was written probably 200 years after IH passed away. The problem manifests in FA as follows, just as one example: One of the primary reasons why ZK narrated the infamous report in FN discussing the 15 or so punishments of missing prayer - declared Batil by al-Dhahabi in Mizan ‘l-I`tidal - is because parts of it is in al-Munabbihat - ZK says: قلتُ: لكن ذكر الحافظ في المنبهات... In other words, ZK was appealing to the authority of IH in support of the narration. The reality is FA is littered with references from this book, which in reality was written by an amateur in Hadith. 2. The book Kitab ‘l-Imamah Wa-’l-Siyasah is one of the sources of FA, which ZK incorrectly ascribed to Ibn Qutaybah. This book is a fabrication against Ibn Qutaybah, falsely attributed to Ibn Qutaybah by a Rafidi. 3. Books that are known to be full of fabrications and severely weak narrations form a major source for narrations in FA, namely: Kanz 'l-`Ummal by al-Muttaqi, al-Khasa'is al-Kubra by al-Suyuti, Musnad 'l-Firdaws by al-Daylami, al-Rawd al-Fa'iq by Shu`ayb al-Hurayfish, Tanbih 'l-Ghafilin by Abu 'l-Layth al-Samarqandi, as well as al-Maqasid al-Hasanah by al-Sakhawi which was written precisely to list many famously dodgy Hadith. 4. Books known to be fundamentally flawed in their understanding of the topic. The prime example of this is al-Zawajir by al-Haytami, in which the list of major sins goes into the hundreds! This has had an impact on FA (and many other works post-900 A.H. that discuss the major sins).

And this brings me to the next point, about singling out FA for special criticism. Yes, the aforementioned narration and the many others that are baseless, fabricated and severely weak are found in previous works. And it must be acknowledged that ZK has a reference for everything he quotes in FA. The reason why I feel FA is singled out is because it is at the forefront of the readings of many people, mainly in TJ but also elsewhere. It is thus at the forefront of the propagation of such narrations. FA is not an obscure book. After all, it was not for FA and ZK, that baseless narration would not occupy such a prominent place in many mosques. Ibn Hajar mentions in his Tabyin ‘l-`Ajab that one of the prerequisites of narrating slightly weak Hadith is it is not widely publicised, ... so that the ignorants do not take it to be an authentic tradition... and there is no difference between laws and virtues as everything is Shariah. MA has disagreed with IH here, but the result of not giving any consideration to this preventative stipulation - and indeed the other prerequisites of narrating and acting upon weak narrations - are plainly in front of us. And quite frankly, pulling the MA card will not work - his book on proving that weak Hadith has a special status in Hadith literature is a disaster, and he has made numerous blunders in his race to the peak of irresponsibility. It is precisely his blunders I plan to address in the future, in the treatise I alluded to earlier on. It should be worth noting what exactly ZK’s methodology in FA was. The old TN has this in the introduction. In one place, it says: S. Zakariyya mentions in his introduction to Faza'il-e Quran, “It is necessary to point out here that I have heavily relied on Mishkat [by al-Tabrizi], Tanqih 'l-Ruwat [by Ahmad Hasan Mawlawi], Mirqat [by Mulla Ali al-Qari], the commentary of Ihya' 'l-`Ulum [by al-Zabidi] and Targhib by al-Mundhiri, which is why I have not felt the need to reference them. However, wherever I have cited from elsewhere, I have provided the reference.” I did not find this in the introduction to FQ per se, but it is in the introduction of TN nonetheless. Perhaps it is a different edition of FQ. More interestingly, ZK writes in his introduction to Faza'il-e Namaz: Because prayer is propagated also by the people of knowledge, I have submitted in Arabic the references of the Hadith and other details that are pertinent to scholars. These are of no benefit to the laity, though those in Tabligh are sometimes in need of [i.e. these details]. Furthermore, in response to a letter, S. Zakariyya mentioned (loosely translated, removing expressions of extreme humility on the part of ZK, and with a few explanatory additions): It should be remembered that a small amount of weakness is tolerable in issues of virtues. This principle is what should be kept in mind with regards to narrations that are mentioned in my Faza'il books. If someone from the past scholars has spoken in critique of a narration, I have explained it with the evidence of its weakness. Because the issue of weakness is relative only to scholars and not the laity, I have written this in Arabic, as it is beyond the comprehension of the laity. But if you feel there are narrations that have an intolerable amount of weakness, then you may point it out to me without hesitation – such narrations can be removed after giving the matter thought. With that said, I have not relied solely on my opinion, but rather multiple scholars, especially Maulana As`adullah [d. 1979], the rector of Mazahirul Uloom, and Qari Sa`id Ahmad, the Mufti of Mazahirul Uloom [who authored Mu`allim 'l-Hujjaj], who have revised it to the letter – whatever they pointed out to me as severely weak has been removed. For this, every book from the Faza'il series has had a fourth or a fifth removed from the original work. Even then, I am certain that these books leave a lot to be desired for in terms of sieving out intolerably weak narrations. And in response to another letter, ZK says:

Unfortunately, in the era of enhanced and sophisticated partisanship, breaking down its barriers means proving a point has to be from your interlocutors’ ‘own backyard’ in order for the discussion to be even entertained by them. Without that, what happens is when someone like AN criticises ZK or FA, it must be because he hates TJ and has a deep-seated hatred of ZK. And in the hitjob penned by someone against AN a few days ago, JI analogised AN with the Rafidis: By the bye, it is not uncommon for the Rawafidh to also quote and misconstrue the above hadith, with a view to disparage Sayyida Ā’isha (radhiallahu anha). Seriously? It would have been better of JI to take down AN and his assertions on the mental health of ZK without this and other disparaging remarks. Or maybe he learned this style from Muhammad Awwamah in his book Hukm ‘l-`Amal Bi al-Hadith al-Da`if, whose disparaging remarks against al-Albani likewise have not gone unnoticed. (see comments) Everybody knows there is a reason why FA has not been translated to Arabic (as far as I'm aware [edit: it has been translated, see comments]). It is partly that same reason why a book by the name of Muntakhab Ahadis was released in recent times to compensate. And the Arab TJ contingent stubbornly sticks to al-Nawawi’s Riyad ‘l-Salihin. And it’s not only all those Sufi stories from buzurgs (which I do not want to talk about as that is a separate issue); it is also largely because of the nature of the prophetic Hadith and Athar of the Sahabah that are in FA. No comprehensive Takhrij work has been attempted on FA. Some books are dedicated to the Takhrij of narrations leading a topic (which ZK himself provides), but all the narrations he mentions in their commentary are overlooked in these Takhrij books. And therein lies the rub: ZK does not mention the source of these reports at all. And this problem is acknowledged in the introduction of the old FA published as TN during his lifetime: Note: This table of references does not include those books that [S. Zakariyya], may his respect remain, mentioned in commentary of a narration, or as Shawahid. The real deal would be when someone commits to a Takhrij on these reports. And they are, I estimate, in the thousands. A tough proposition, but when electronic libraries available for fast cross-checking and referencing, it ought to be done. Perhaps one of the best manifestations of this problem - the problem of non-referenced explanatory narrations under the leading narrations inside FA - is the narration of اللهم صل على محمد النبي الأمي وعلى آله وسلم تسليما - if read 80 times after Friday’s Asr, it is equal to 80 years of worship and 80 years of sins will be wiped away. This is a baseless narration and is found in al-Qawl al-Badi` by al-Sakhawi. Yet, it occupies the front walls of many Deobandi-administered mosques across the world, as if it is the most authentic supplication on the planet. Had it not been for ZK’s insertion of this narration in FA, this would not have happened. But nobody cares, even when repeatedly told to remove it from their mosque walls. Some several ago, I told my friend and colleague, who is an Imam in a mosque nearby me, to remove it from the mosque wall and place something authentic in its place. His answer was there is some sensitivity in removing it from the wall! The funny thing is it was printed on a piece of paper and covered in a plastic sheath; some time later, they replaced it with plastic placards carrying the same narration, drilled professionally into the marble wall! This is precisely the personality worship that many people suffer from: Whatever the Akabir say, goes. But I’m not being fair there. When M. Fazlur Rahman Azami - clearly from the living Akabir - visited the same mosque and was asked about this narration, and he told them there is not much basis for it, they still did nothing about it, and kept it on the walls!

A PERSPECTIVE ON WEAK AND FABRICATED NARRATIONS IN TABLIGHI NISAB (from 2017) I do not believe mental health was responsible for S. Zakariyya Kandhalwi inserting fabrications, severely weak Marfu` narrations and other weak Hadith in his Faza’il-e Amaal (which I’ll refer to from here on in as FA; formerly known and published as Tablighi Nisab - my copy at home is in the header). It was an off-the-cuff remark that Dr Akram Nadwi made in a speech, based on reading some passages that are indicative of ZK having a mental illness. Having said that, I also do not think this [incorrect] analysis by AN was intended to be an insult. Of course, thin-skinned Madkhali Deobandis take anything remotely critical of their Manhaj, Mashrab, Maslak, Dhawq, Mizaj, Akabir, Hanfism, Deobandism, Sufism... (the list goes on) as a personal insult akin to one’s own mother being insulted. As Salman Younas pointed out recently, many of the great ancient scholars of Hadith were scrutinised for their memory in old age not being as it was during their prime. He says: [Usman Iqbal b]izarrely accuses Shaykh Akram of being out of order with scholars because he stated that Mawlana Zakariyya had mental health issues when writing Fada'il al-A'mal (likely to explain why problematic hadith crept into the book). The attack by the brother here is based on an unsound assumption that questioning the capacity of a scholar in his old age (or otherwise) due to health problems and the like is a grave attack on their status. In the process, the brother shows complete unawareness to the fact that the muhhadithun themselves did this all the time with great narrators of hadith and scholars who they identified as becoming confused or senile during later stages of their life e.g. the great Imam and Hafiz `Ata' ibn Sa'ib and the great muhaddith of Basra Sa`id ibn Abi `Aruba. Does this make those who identified this in them "out of order"? This is an example of a clearly emotional response by the brother given his links to Mawlana Zakariyya's tariqa. (https://www.facebook.com/salyounas/posts/10102548787656064) So the mental health issue is out of the way. Perhaps if AN - if he said what he is accused of saying - would like to revise, clarify, retract (or whatever he feels necessary) the mental health issue being responsible for ZK having such narrations in FA, it would go some way to mend the scab that has been reopened in the past two days. So if mental health isn’t responsible for the fabrications and severely weak narrations in FA, then what is? Before I get into the meat of this, I would encourage everybody to understand that this is an issue. This isn’t some non-issue that can be swept under the carpet. The prophetic tradition is something that is worth preserving, and part of that preservation is understanding the fabricated to be fabricated, the weak to be weak, and the authentic to be authentic - each have their own rulings in terms of rejection and acceptability. I’m writing up a treatise on this so I’ll leave the bulk of the details on the issue of weak narrations for another time and place. For now, I would encourage the reader to understand that Deobandis who are honest about searching for the truth - and not just defending FA no matter the collateral cost - are discussing these things. See this discussion: http://www.muftisays.com/forums/14-peoples-say/11050-another-fabricated-hadith-in-fazaile-ramadhan-.html This is absolutely the right attitude to have. If they can discuss this and honestly seek out answers, one should not dismiss an outsider of the Maslak wanting to tackle this issue. If we truly want to be objective, then criticism of an insider should not hold more value, nor should the endorsement and verification of an outsider.

- The mistakes are not so great. It is a reliable and important work as takhrij works go. Ibn Abd al-Hadi made corrections and additions in his revised edition called Tanqih al-Tahqiq.

3. People whose objective is to undertake a comprehensive discussion in order to stay ahead and acquire leadership, and to engage in debate and drawing analogies; they have no consideration for the authentication or the criticism of the narration. This is not the affair of the one who adopts safety in the religion and seeks assurance for his affair. Regarding a wording that is reported in the authentic books of narration, I have seen one old-school jurist say in his book, "It is not possible that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said these words", rejecting the authentic narration. He says, "This is unknown", when in fact it is only he who does not know it. Then I saw him using a narration as evidence thinking that al-Bukhari had reported it, when in fact that was not the case. Thereafter, another author took this from him verbatim out of blind following. He then went on to give evidence in an issue by saying, "Our evidence is what some have narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said such and such." I have seen the majority of our teachers state in their books: "Our evidence is what Abu Bakr al-Khallal narrated with his chain to the Messenger of Allah", or "Our evidence is what Abu Bakr `Abd 'l-`Aziz narrated with his chain", or "Our evidence is what Ibn Battah narrated with his chain", when in fact most of those narrations are in the books of the authentic books - al-Musnad or the Sunan. The only reason why they suffice with this is sheer laziness in research. What is strange is that they have no occupation other than [studying] issues of legal difference. Yet they - out of all these issues of differences - limit their debates to fifty issues; in the majority of these, they do not use a single narration as evidence. Imagine the number of other issues he is sitting back from, out of laziness just to avoid undertaking painstaking research to learn about them in detail. Chapter According to me, those who are even more blameworthy - amongst those whom I have criticised - are the group of major scholars of narration who can discern the authentic narration from the weak and have written on [the topic]: when a weak narration that goes against their position comes, they elaborate on its criticisms, yet when it is in accordance to their own legal position, they remain silent and do not criticise it. This smacks of deficiency in religiosity and the overcoming of predilection. Abu 'l-Husayn bin `Abd 'l-Khaliq informed us: Ahmad bin `Abd 'l-Rahman bin Yusuf reported to us: Muhammad bin `Abd 'l-Malik bin Bushran reported to us: `Ali bin `Umar al-Daraqutni related to us: Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa`id related to us: Ibrahim bin `Abd 'llah bin Muhammad al-Sakuni related to us: I heard my father say: I heard Waki` saying, "The people of knowledge write that which goes both for them and against them, and the people of predilections write only which goes for them" I bring this at the time when we shall begin mentioning narrations, avoiding the bigotry that we believe is illegal in this type of work. A fair author is hard to find. If we were to mention every narration with all its routes and were to prolong its discussion, it would become too long and arduous. This is a topic for the jurists, whose purpose is achieved with conciseness. It is the scholars of narration who have the expertise to explain this with their chains. And Allah is the granter of ability.

(Al-Tahqiq Fi Masa'il 'l-Khilaf, 1st edition 1419 A.H., Dar 'l-Wa`y al-`Arabi in Aleppo and Cairo, and Maktabat Ibn `Abd 'l-Barr in Aleppo and Damascus, vol. 1, pg. 2-4.) Comments: - It should be noted though that Ibn 'l-Jawzi made multiple errors in this book, as pointed out by later scholars, such as Ibn Nuqtah. - It does seem accurate, though, if he was talking about usuli scholars especially. I remember more than once instance of people baseer in usul but building principles on weak ahadith or aqwal they incorrectly thought were hadith. Or wasting time arguing with Jews about naskh.

IMAM IBN 'L-JAWZI SLAMS SLOPPINESS IN HADITH NARRATION WITHIN FIQH AUTHORSHIP This is a piece by Ibn 'l-Jawzi (died 597 A.H.), condemning sloppiness in Fiqh authorship, which he observed in his contemporaries. It is found in the introduction to one of his books (reference below). The message is a wake-up call for scholars and students, emphasising the need for them step up to the plate in Fiqh precision, especially when dealing with Hadith. This passage clearly demonstrates that adopting weak narrations per se in matters of the Fiqh was never something that was considered praiseworthy in scholarly circles. Also, the Hadith quoting practices of many later jurists are not a source of proof.

This is a book in which we mention our own and our adversaries' position in issues of difference. We uncover the evidence of both from narration with fairness. We are biased neither for nor against, nor do we guess arbitrarily in whatever we say. A fair person coming across this [work] will praise us and will realise that we are most worthy of that which is correct than all other groups. And Allah is the granter of ability towards the most righteous of paths and the most guided of realisations. Chapter The reason behind that which fired up my desire for writing this book was that a group of my brothers and teachers in Fiqh used to request me in my childhood to compile the narrations of suspension, and to explain that which is authentic and that which has been critiqued, but I was unable to do so due to two things: 1. My engagement in studies 2. My assumption that whatever is mentioned in the books of suspended narrations is sufficient However, when I looked in the books of suspended narrations, I observed that the competence of most jurists was little, with most relying on narrations that are not authentic, whilst disregarding the authentic narrations, in blind following of each other in whatever they reported. Also, the later scholars have become of three types: 1. People who have become prone to laziness and consider that there is tiring and burden in research, so they forward themselves to resting and are content with what others have written 2. People who are unable to locate the sources of the narrations and realised they must question those who know this, but they refuse to do so

S. ABDUL FATTAH ABU GHUDDAH ON HIS TEACHER, MUHAMMAD ZAHID AL-KAWTHARI In 1394, S. `Abd ‘l-Fattah Abu Ghuddah said of his teacher, Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari (taken from إمداد الفتاح, pg. 656), putting into perspective his point of view on his connections to the latter, who was a point of controversy for many of those around AFAG (in Najd):

As for their attacks against me that I am al-Kawthari's student... then I say that yes indeed I am the student of al-Kawthari (May Allah have mercy on him), just like I am the student of many other scholars apart from him (May Allah have mercy on them). I have studied under more than 100 scholar and praise is for Allah - in my city Aleppo, and in other places in the Levant, Makkah, Madinah, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Morocco, etc. So I have around 100 teachers. I studied underneath them and I took knowledge from them. Each had his own method and position. I have never adhered to the statements of any one of them just because he is my teacher. I have only adhered to what I see to be correct and what I believe to be the truth and the preferred position. I may err or be right in it, as is the affair of any student of knowledge. So their claim that I adhere to everything what al-Kawthari says... is a totally incorrect claim. What refutes them are my footnotes and my many quotes in my books and the books I have researched and edited. They are in the public domain, as well as in the hands of these people who plot [against me]. They must have studied these books again and again so that they may come across some opening by which they can throw their abuse and ill-manners on to me. They haven't found anything as such, therefore they have resorted to claim that I adhere to al-Kawthari in everything that he says - 100%. They shove this [accusation] in all places just to kindle the fire... The most evident evidence to refute their slander is this: I have filled my books and footnotes with statements from Sheikh 'l-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Ibn 'l-Qayyim (May Allah have mercy on them); I have served some books of Ibn 'l-Qayyim by publishing and researching them as previously mentioned; I have praised these two, defended them and mentioned them with respect tens of times in my books, as previously mentioned. Sheikh al-Kawthari (May Allah have mercy on him, and may He forgive us and him) abandoned these two Imams as was his opinion and Ijtihad. If I adhered to everything he said, I too would have abandoned these two and I would have followed him in this position of his regarding them (May Allah have mercy on these two). The reality is different from this. I studied under one of my greater teachers in Aleppo (May Allah have mercy on him). This Sheikh of mine used to love Ibn Taymiyyah so much that I have never seen anyone within the contemporaries love him as much as he did. He used to say: "If prophethood was not sealed off, then Ibn Taymiyyah would have been a prophet". I have not accepted this, nor have I accepted [al-Kawthari's position]. Praise is due to Allah who has granted me justice, awe for the Imams and scholars, the ability to benefit from them and respect for them. Praise is for Allah who has granted me the ability to distinguish between the acceptable and the rejected, by which I accept what I see - according to my understanding - to be acceptable even if it comes from the lowest of people, and by which I leave what I see to be removed from acceptance even if it comes from any famous scholar greater than even Sheikh al-Kawthari... Only a bigot or an idiot would follow [a person] in all things. Also, [these plotters against me] know from 25 years that I am a student of al-Kawthari, so [why is it that all of a sudden that this is brought to light]!?

INSIGHT INTO ALBANI'S THOUGHTS ON WEAK HADITH AND HIS OPINION ON ITS USAGE These comments are quite important in understanding what his position actually was regarding weak Hadith and its prerequisites for narration and practice. ومن المؤسف أن نرى كثيرا من العلماء فضلا عن العامة متساهلين بهذه الشروط، فهم يعملون بالحديث دون أن يعرفوا صحته من ضعفه، وإذا عرفوا ضعفه لم يعرفوا مقداره وهل هو يسير أو شديد يمنع العمل به. ثم هم يشهرون العمل به كما لو كان حديثا صحيحا. ولذلك كثرت العبادات التي لا تصح بين المسلمين وصرفتهم عن العبادات الصحيحة التي وردت بالأسانيد الثابتة. (منتهى الأماني، صـ 182) It is very saddening that we see many scholars - never mind laymen - who are lax about these prerequisites. They practise upon the Hadith without identifying the authentic from the weak, and when they do learn of its weakness they don't ascertain whether it is slight [only], or severe enough to prevent practise upon it. Then they go around propagating its practise as if it was some authentic Hadith. This is why weak acts of worship have become commonplace between Muslims, distracting them from authentic acts of worship that are narrated with solid chains. وهذا (الاشتراط) منهم شيء جيد جدا - جزاهم الله خيرا - وإن كان تحقيق ذلك عسيرا جدا على العلماء فضلا عن غيرهم من العامة ومدعي العلم... (انظر منتهى الأماني، صـ 188 - 189) Their placing of prerequisites was a very good thing - may Allah reward them - even though implementing them is very hard even for even scholars, never mind other people like laymen and claimants of knowledge... ولذلك فإني أرى أن القول بالجواز بالشرطين السابقين نظري غير عملي بالنسبة لجماهير الناس، لأنه من أين لهم تمييز الضعيف من الضعيف جدا؟ ومن أين لهم تمييز ما يجوز العمل به منه فقهيا مما لا يجوز؟ فيرجع الأمر عمليا إلى قول ابن العربي المتقدم: إنه لا يعمل بالحديث الضعيف مطلقا. (منتهى الأماني، صـ 180) And this is why I say that the opinion of permissibility [of practising on weak Hadith] with the previous two conditions is not very practical for the overwhelming majority of people, because they simply cannot distinguish between [slightly] weak and severely weak. Also, how are they supposed to distinguish those which can be legally practised upon and that which cannot be practised upon [as such]? Therefore, for practicality purposes, the issue comes back to what Ibn 'l-`Arabi said previously: Weak Hadith should not be practised upon at all. أقول: حكم الشيخ الألباني أن من تساهل في الشروط فهو إما غاش للمسلمين وإما جاهل، وهو آثم في كلا الحالين. ونقل أيضا عن الإمام ابن حبان أن الوعيد مترتب على من رآى أنه كذب فقط كما هو ظاهر الحديث، لا من تيقن كذبه، فكل واحد روى الخبر شاك في صحته داخل في الوعيد. عقب الحافظ ابن حجر قول الإمام ابن حبان هذا بقوله: فكيف بمن عمل به!؟ (انظر منتهى الأماني، صـ 183 - 184) (Paraphrased by me) Sheikh al-Albani rules that whomsoever is lax about the prerequisites of weak Hadith is either one who deceives the Muslims, or he is an ignorant. In both situations, he is sinful. Sheikh al-Albani reports from Ibn Hibban that the threat [for lying against the Prophet (peace be upon him)] applies to even the one who thinks it is a lie, as is the apparent phrase of the Hadith, not only the one who knows that it is a lie. Therefore, anybody who doubts the authenticity of a Hadith is included in this threat. This is why Hafiz Ibn Hajar commented on this statement of Ibn Hibban by saying, "So what do you think about the one who (goes a step further after narration and actually] practises on such a Hadith!?" منتهى الأماني بفوائد مصطلح الحديث للمحدث الألباني، أحمد بن سليمان أيوب، مكتبة الفاروق الحديثية

Ignorance of Arabic often leads to misunderstanding, embarrassment, and even deviation. Knowledge of the language acts as a safeguard, enabling accurate comprehension and sound judgement. 13. Cognitive and Global Benefits Like all second languages, Arabic broadens the mind, sharpens thinking, and introduces new perspectives. Moreover, nearly one-fifth of the world’s population speaks Arabic as a native language, making it globally significant. 14. Career and Professional Opportunities Arabic proficiency can dramatically enhance career prospects. In fields such as education, diplomacy, business, security, media, and academia, demand for Arabic speakers continues to grow exponentially. 15. Access to Media and Culture Arabic allows direct access to news, documentaries, and entertainment from the Arab world. High-quality productions—such as the *Umar* series by MBC, along with educational, sports, and children’s content—become both informative and enriching when understood in their original language. --- In summary, learning Arabic from a young age nurtures faith, sharpens intellect, strengthens identity, and opens doors—spiritually, academically, and professionally. It is not simply a language to be learned, but a lifelong key to understanding Islam and engaging confidently with the world.

Benefits of Learning the Arabic Language from a Young Age Learning Arabic early is not merely an academic pursuit; it is an investment in faith, identity, intellect, and opportunity. Below are some of the most compelling benefits of acquiring Arabic from a young age. 1. A Shared Language of the Muslim World Arabic is the universal language of Muslims. Possessing it in a foreign Muslim land—or when engaging with Muslims from other cultures—naturally earns respect and credibility. Even when communication is limited, Arabic bridges gaps and places responsibility for misunderstanding away from the speaker. 2. The Language of the Qur’an Arabic is the language in which the Qur’an was revealed: “Indeed, We have sent it down as a clear Arabic Qur’an.” Awareness of Arabic is, therefore, awareness of the Qur’an itself. Recitation without comprehension can never unlock the Qur’an’s full transformative power. True contemplation (tadabbur), a direct Qur’anic command, is only achievable through knowledge of Arabic—allowing the believer to reflect correctly, internalise meaning, and weep where the Words of Allah call for humility and awe. 3. Enhanced Memorisation of Sacred Texts Understanding Arabic dramatically eases memorisation, particularly of the Qur’an. Consider the difficulty of memorising a long sentence in an unfamiliar language versus your mother tongue. Meaning anchors memory. While reading Arabic without comprehension assists memorisation to a degree, understanding the language multiplies efficiency and depth—saving years of effort in the memorisation of Qur’an, Hadith, and supplications. 4. Freedom from Memorising Translations With Arabic as a tool, the need to memorise translations disappears. Memorising translations of Qur’anic chapters, Hadith, or supplications consumes precious study time—time that is far better invested in strengthening Arabic itself, which then unlocks unlimited texts directly. 5. The Language of the Messenger ﷺ and His Companions Arabic is the language of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his Companions. Reading their words in the original language carries an impact that no translation can replicate. Just as Arabic is the primary key to understanding the Word of Allah, it is also the key to understanding the Sunnah and the lived Islam of the earliest generations. 6. Direct Access to Islamic Scholarship Arabic connects the learner to the vast spiritual, moral, and intellectual heritage of Islam. It grants direct access to centuries of scholarship, enabling engagement with the works of great scholars without reliance on intermediaries or selective translations. 7. Meaningful Supplication Knowledge of Arabic allows one to supplicate using authentic Sunnah supplications with full awareness of their profound meanings. It also enables personal supplication in Arabic—particularly virtuous during optional prayers—enhancing humility, presence, and sincerity. 8. Preservation of the Religion Learning Arabic is a manifestation of preserving Islam itself—arguably as vital as memorising the Qur’an and Sunnah. Language safeguards meaning, and meaning safeguards religion. 9. A Strong Religious Identity At a time when third- and fourth-generation Muslim youth are losing their mother tongues, Arabic provides a powerful sense of religious identity—one that transcends ethnicity and culture and anchors the believer firmly in Islam. 10. Understanding the Friday Sermon Arabic enables a deeper connection to the Friday sermon (khutbah). Where sermons are delivered thoughtfully rather than read mechanically, their impact on the heart is profound. For centuries, the khutbah—instituted by the Prophet ﷺ himself—has been the Muslim’s most powerful weekly spiritual reminder. 11. Correct Prioritisation of Other Languages Placing Arabic at the centre of early education correctly contextualises the study of other languages such as Persian, Turkish, or Urdu. While valuable, these languages do not—and should not—take precedence over Arabic for a Muslim. 12. Protection from Error and Misguidance